Structural Analysis Guyed Steel Telecommunication Towers - A08v29n2 PDF

Structural Analysis of Guyed Steel Telecommunication Towers for ...
J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright 2007 by ABCM April-June 2007, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 / 185

Marcel Isandro R. de Oliveira
miroliveira@labbas.eng.uerj.br
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ
Programa de Ps-Graduao em Engenharia Civil

Jos Guilherme S. da Silva
Member, ABCM
jgss@eng.uerj.br
Pedro Colmar G. da S. Vellasco
Member, ABCM
vellasco@eng.uerj.br
Departamento de Engenharia Mecnica
20550-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Brazil
Sebastio Arthur L. de Andrade
andrade@civ.puc-rio.br
Deprtamento de Engenharia Civil, PUC-RJ
22453-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Brazil
Luciano R. O. de Lima
luciano@eng.uerj.br
Departamento de Estruturas e Fundaes
Structural Analysis of Guyed Steel
Telecommunication Towers for Radio
Antennas
The usual structural analysis models for telecommunication and transmission steel tower
design tend to assume a simple truss behaviour where all the steel connections are
considered hinged. Despite this fact, the most commonly used tower geometries possess
structural mechanisms that could compromise the assumed structural behaviour. A
possible explanation for the structure stability is related to the connections semi-rigid
response instead of the initially assumed pinned behaviour. This paper proposes an
alternative structural analysis modelling strategy for guyed steel towers design,
considering all the actual structural forces and moments, by using three-dimensional beam
and truss finite elements. Comparisons of the above mentioned design models with a third
alternative, that models the main structure and the bracing system with 3D beam finite
elements, are made for three existing guyed steel telecommunication towers (50m, 70m
and 90m high). The comparisons are initially based on the towers static and dynamic
structural behaviour later to be followed by a linear buckling analysis to determine the
influence of the various modelling strategies on the tower stability behaviour.
Keywords: telecommunication and transmission towers, guyed steel structures, spatial
structures, structural analysis, computational modelling, modal analysis, stability analysis.

Introduction
The Brazilian telecommunication and electrical power
transmission systems expansion were the main reasons for efficient
and cost-effective transmission and telecommunication steel towers.
Steel truss towers have been used to support transmission antennas
or to enable electrical power transmission lines to be built,
interconnecting the vast Brazilian territory. However, structural
collapses, mainly associated with the wind action, are not
uncommon to this particular structural solution (Blessmann, 2001;
Carril Jnior 2000).
1

Despite these facts, most of the traditional structural analysis
methods for telecommunication and transmission steel towers still
assume a simple truss behaviour, where all connections are
considered hinged. On the other hand, structural mechanisms, that
could compromise the assumed structural response, can be present
in various commonly used tower geometries whenever truss type
models are adopted (Policani 2000, 2000a; Silva et al. 2000, 2002).
A usual solution to overcome this problem is the use of dummy
structural bars to prevent the occurrence of the unwanted degrees of
freedom. These bars, possessing a small axial stiffness, are generally
employed to prevent the occurrence of structural mechanisms,
enabling the use of standard finite element programs. A possible
explanation for the structure stability is related to the semi-rigid,
instead of the assumed hinged joint behaviour. In fact, most major
steel tower constructors still rely on full-scale tests to determine
which design and fabrication details can provide a good test
correlation with the assumed simple truss model results.

Paper accepted April, 2006. Technical Editor: Marcelo A. Savi.

This paper proposes an alternative structural analysis modelling
strategy, based on a less conservative model combining 3D beam
finite elements in the main structure and 3D truss elements in the
bracing system and eliminating the use of dummy bars present in the
traditional analysis.
Further comparisons of the two above mentioned methods and
another design alternative only using 3D beam finite elements on
three existing guyed steel telecommunication towers (50m, 70m and
90m high) are described. The comparison is focused on the tower
structural response in terms of displacements, bending moments,
stresses, natural frequencies and buckling loads.
Nomenclature
max
= Maximum stress of the tower;
u
max
= Maximum horizontal displacements of the tower
f
01
= First natural frequency of the tower,
f
02
= Second natural frequency of the tower,
f
03
= Third natural frequency of the tower,
f
04
= Fourth natural frequency of the tower,
f
05
= Fifth natural frequency of the tower,
01
= First buckling load of the tower,
02
= Second buckling load of the tower,
03
= Third buckling load of the tower,
04
= Fourth buckling load of the tower,
05
= Fifth buckling load of the tower,
The Structural Modelling
Several authors have contributed with theoretical and
experimental investigations to access the best modelling strategy for
steel transmission and telecommunication towers. It is fair to
Marcel Isandro R. de Oliveira et al
186 / Vol. XXIX, No. 2, April-June 2007 ABCM
mention the investigations made by: Albermani and Kitipornchai
1993 and 2003; Albermani et al 2004; Carril Jnior 2000; El-
Ghazaly and Al-Khaiat 1995; Kahla 1994 and 2000, Kitipornchai
and Albermani 1992; Madugula and Wahba 1998; Menin 2002, Rao
and Kalyanaraman 2001; Saxena et al 1989; Wahba et al 1996 and
Wahba et al 1998.
Kahla 1994, numerically modelled the dynamical effects present
in guyed steel towers including the cable galloping effects. Later the
same author, Kahla 2000, dynamically modelled the rupture of a
cable present in guyed steel towers. The analysis indicated that the
guyed steel towers cable rupture, disregarding the wind actions, was
one of the most severe critical load hypotheses for the investigated
structures.
Wahba et al 1996, considered the dynamical nature of the load
acting in guyed steel towers like wind, earthquakes and cable gallop.
The finite element method was used to model the tower bars as 3D
truss and 3D beam elements obtaining the structural models
dynamical characteristics. In a subsequent phase these results were
compared to experiments. This paper also described the results of
experiments made to identify the main parameters that influence the
guyed steel towers natural frequencies, as well as, their and
associated vibration modes.
Ghazalyt and Khaiatz 1995, evaluated telecommunication guyed
steel tower designs based on discussions of the various non-linear
aspects involved on their numerical modelling. This paper also
contemplated the development and comparisons of the results of a
3D model for a 600 meter height guyed steel tower.
Wahba et al 1998, performed an investigation of the numerical
models used in telecommunication guyed steel towers. The authors
stressed the relevance of considering the non-linear effects present
even at service load levels. In a subsequent paper, Madugula and
Wahba 1998, described two different finite element models for the
dynamical simulation of guyed steel towers. This paper also
contemplated an experimental modal analysis of reduced-scale
guyed steel towers models that produced results in consonance with
the developed numerical models.
Menin 2002, evaluated telecommunication guyed steel towers
from their static and dynamical structural responses. The static
analysis compared linear and non-linear mathematical models. The
dynamical analysis employed the Monte Carlo simulation method
including the wind load floating parcel producing interesting results.
Albermani and Kitipornchai 2003, used the finite element
method by means of a geometrical and physical non-linear analysis
to simulate the structural response of telecommunication and
transmission steel towers. This was followed by a later work of
Albermani et al 2004, that investigated the possibility of
strengthening steel truss towers from a restructure and
rearrangement of their bracing systems. The adopted solution
consisted on the addition of axially rigid systems to intermediate
transverse planes of the tower panels.
The main purpose of the adopted modelling strategies was to
investigate the structural behaviour of the guyed steel towers,
preventing the occurrence of spurious structural mechanisms that
could lead to uneconomic or unsafe structure. The towers
investigated in the present paper (50m, 70m and 90m), have a truss
type geometry with a square cross section. Hot rolled angle sections
connected by bolts compose the main structure as well as the
bracing system. Prestressed cables support the main structure, which
must be always in tension. Some of these cables are linked to a
specific set of bars arranged to improve the system torsional
stiffness. The geometry configuration of the three guyed towers are
depicted in Fig. 1.

(a) 50m high

(b) 70m high

(c) 90m high
Figure 1. Towers basic geometric data.

This investigation considered as acting vertical loads: structure
self-weight, stairs, antennas, cables, etc. The steel tower wind
effects were the main horizontal loads. These horizontal loads were
calculated according to the procedures described on the Brazilian
code NBR 6123 (NBR 6123, 1988) and applied to the guyed tower
nodes. Two wind load cases related to actions perpendicular and
diagonal to the towers face were considered in this analysis. The
adopted guy prestress loads were in accordance to the values
described in the Canadian Code CSA S37-94 (CSA S37-94, 1994).
A lateral view of the tower and its corresponding idealized
structural model are presented in Fig. 2. It can be shown that the
idealized structural model cannot only be represented by 3D truss
finite elements.
The steel tower modelling presented problems related to the loss
of continuity, in some parts of the structure, due to the presence of
hinges associated with the 3D truss finite elements. The vertical
angles (main legs) are usually connected by a three-bolt connection
leading to a rigid design assumption. Using truss elements to model
the angles a moment discontinuity occurs, since the trusses
connections are considered flexible. On the other hand, using only
one bolt in the diagonal or horizontal versus leg angle connections,
give rises to another discontinuity. Although the in-plane behaviour
can be considered flexible, the out-of-plane behaviour disregards the
torsion and bending continuity present in the structure.
To overcome this problem, dummy bars, without mass and with
low axial stiffness, were incorporated to the structure. In this
process every new bar represents the suppression of an internal
degree of freedom. Although the towers have only four bars in the
horizontal plane defined by a typical transversal section (Fig. 2) it is
still necessary to add a fifth dummy bar to create two isostatic
triangles. If this restraint was not considered a simple structural
mechanism collapse would occur. Another reason for using these
bars is to improve the structure torsion stiffness.

(a)

(b)
Figure 2. (a) Tower main structure (a) and (b) associated idealized model
and dummy bars location.

All the above-mentioned aspects allied to all the difficulties
associated with the investigated tower geometry and to the truss
finite element characteristics highlight the fact that the traditional
truss design is not the best-recommended methodology to be used. It
should be stressed that the large number of dummy bars, adopted to
enable the structural analysis to be performed, is the major
disadvantage of this structural modelling strategy. The used 3D truss
finite element is presented in Fig. 3.
This structural modelling strategy is characterised by the use of
3D beam finite elements with rigid connections. The adopted beam
finite elements presented six degrees of freedom per node associated
with translation and rotation displacements in space, respectively, as
shown in Fig. 3.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 3. (a)Adopted spatial truss, (b) cable (tension only) and (c) spatial
beam finite elements.

When all the structural modelling strategies investigated are
compared, the beam element modelling is the easiest to use. This
conclusion is mainly justified by the fact that the adoption of
dummy bars to prevent possible mechanisms is not required in the
beam modelling strategy. Another advantage is the computational
model uniformity since all the adopted bars are represented by a
single finite element type (3D beam). Despite all the mentioned
structural modelling advantages the model final results should be
carefully checked. This is due to the fact that in principle, the rigid
connections adopted in this strategy can lead to some disturbing
and/or spurious effects, especially when the tower critical buckling
loads are considered.
Based on an extensive parametric investigation, a modelling
strategy combining three-dimensional beam and truss finite
elements was proposed. In this methodology the main structure uses
3D beam elements, while the bracing system utilises truss finite
elements. This method models the structure as a static determined
system discarding the need for dummy bars present in the traditional
analysis. The adoption of truss finite elements in the bracing system
is explained by two main reasons: a single bolt indicating a hinged
behaviour usually makes the bracing system connections to the main
structural system. Additionally, the low flexure stiffness values,
associated with the bracing elements, imply that no significant
moments will be present or transmitted to these structural members.
The use of these two types of 3D finite elements (beam and
truss) also eliminates the spurious mechanisms found in the
traditional design strategy, disregarding the need for the previously
mentioned dummy bars. The authors believe, based on the
performed parametric investigations, (Silva et al, 2000, 2002 and
2005), that this mixed modelling strategy can produce more realistic
and trustworthy results in respect to the static and dynamic
structural analysis, as well as to the tower critical load assessment.
The proposed computational model, developed for the steel tower
static and dynamic analysis, adopted the usual mesh refinement
techniques present in finite element method simulations
implemented in the ANSYS program (ANSYS, 1998). In this
computational model, the main structure was represented by three-
dimensional beam elements where flexural and torsion effects are
considered or truss elements having a uniaxial tension-only (or
compression-only) element. The prestressed cables were simulated
by spar elements, see Fig. 3.
The ANSYS beam element BEAM44 (ANSYS, 1998), Fig. 3, is
a uniaxial element with tension, compression, torsion, and bending
capabilities. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node:
translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about
the nodal x, y, and z-axes. The ANSYS spar element LINK10
(ANSYS, 1998), Fig. 3, is a 3-D element having the unique feature
of a bilinear stiffness matrix resulting in a uniaxial tension-only (or
compression-only) element. With the tension-only option, the
stiffness is removed if the element goes into compression
(simulating a slack cable or slack chain condition). This feature is
useful for static guy-wire applications where the entire guy wire is
modelled with a single element.
Static Analysis
Table 1 present linear static analysis results for the investigated
guyed towers (50m, 70m and 90m high), according to the three
earlier mentioned structural models. Maximum values of stresses
and horizontal displacements are presented and compared.
The acting loads considered in the present analysis where self-
weight and two wind load cases. In theses cases the horizontal wind
loads were applied perpendicular and diagonal to the towers face.
The horizontal wind loads were calculated according to the
procedures described on the Brazilian code NBR 6123 (NBR 6123,
1988) and applied to the guyed tower nodes.
The prestress cable loads at the lateral anchoring foundation
region are normally defined as 10% of the cable nominal strength
capacity. It is relevant to observe that prestress cable load values
situated between limits of 8% and 15% are allowed by the Canadian
Standard (CSA S37-94, 1994). The present analysis adopted values
approximately equal to 14%. 13% and 11% for the prestress cable
loads of the towers with 50m 70m and 90m height, respectively
(Menin, 2002).
The largest differences between the maximum stress values
obtained for the simple truss model (Strategy I) and for combined
beam and truss element model (Strategy III) are 76.5% (50m high
tower), 83.1% (70m high tower) and 79.9% (90m high tower) when
compared to the values obtained from the third modelling. When a
quantitative analysis of the data was performed it was possible to
confirm that the maximum stress values were significantly modified,
for the three investigated towers, Table 1. The maximum stress
points are depicted in Fig. 4 for the mixed beam and truss element
model considering the perpendicular wind load case. The maximum
stresses, caused mainly by bending effects, were associated, in all
cases studied, to the towers base members.

Table 1. High steel towers maximum stresses and horizontal displacements.
Modelling Strategies:
I - Truss Element
II - Beam Element
III - Combined Beam and Truss Element
Perpendicular Wind Diagonal Wind Direction
Models Tower Height (m)
max. (MPa) umax. (mm) max. (MPa) umax. (mm)
I 83.8 0.049 78.6 0.025
II 344.7 0.049 318.4 0.026
III 357.0 0.049 330.3 0.024
Difference (I and III) 76.5% None 76.2% 3.8%
Difference (II and III)
50
3.4% None 3.6% 7.7%
I 74.7 0.089 66.4 0.039
II 411.6 0.093 378.9 0.044
III 425.7 0.093 392.2 0.044
Difference (I and III) 82.5% None 83.1% None
70
3.3% None 3.4% None
I 83.4 0.090 74.2 0.041
II 388.8 0.099 360.7 0.049
III 398.5 0.099 369.9 0.049
Difference (I and III) 79.1% 9.1% 79.9% 16.3%
90
2.4% None 2.5% None

Table 2. High steel towers natural frequencies.
I - Truss Element
II - Beam Element
Natural Frequencies f0i (Hz)
f01 f02 f03 f04 f05
I 3.420 3.420 4.203 4.203 5.360
II 4.142 4.142 5.124 5.124 5.504
III
50
2.609 2.698 2.698 2.731 4.000
I 2.616 2.616 3.783 3.783 4.233
II 3.016 3.016 4.225 4.225 4.781
III
70
3.015 3.015 4.222 4.222 4.779
I 2.497 2.497 3.151 3.151 3.420
II 2.903 2.903 3.634 3.634 3.812
III
90
2.902 2.902 3.633 3.633 3.806

Table 3. High steel towers buckling loads.
II - Beam Element
Wind Direction
Perpendicular Diagonal
Buckling Loads 0i
01 02 03 01 02 03
II 10.114 10.306 11.164 10.566 11.063 11.142
III
50
5.520 5.859 6.118 10.526 10.570 10.630
II 14.568 14.810 16.085 15.676 16.079 16.205
III
70
11.245 11.499 11.648 13.350 13.501 13.522
II 11.066 11.121 11.946 11.617 12.354 12.440
III
90
8.3721 8.4425 8.5999 9.2856 9.3311 9.3617

(a) 50m high steel tower

(b) 70m high steel tower
Figure 4. Maximum stress points, perpendicular wind load case.

(c) 90m high steel tower
Figure 4. (Continued)..

On the other hand, the lateral displacements values were
generally not significantly changed when the simple truss model
(Strategy I), the beam model (Strategy II) or the combined beam and
truss model (Strategy III) were considered, Tables 1 to 3. Figure 5
depicts the deformed shape of the three guyed towers for diagonal
wind load case considering the mixed beam and truss element types.


(a) 50m high steel tower

(b) 70m high steel tower

(c) 90m high steel tower
Figure 5. Deformed shapes, perpendicular wind load case.
Dynamic Analysis
The dynamical analysis performed in the present investigation is
based on a free vibration strategy. The study was concentrated in
evaluating natural frequencies and corresponding vibration modes
for the 50m, 70m and 90m high towers considering all the three
finite element modelling strategies previously described. The main
objective of this assessment was to investigate if the choice of finite
element modelling strategy could significantly affect the tower
natural frequencies.

(a) Truss element modelling

(b) Beam element modelling

(c) Mixed beam and truss element modelling
Figure 6. 50m tower models, first mode shape, lateral view.




The tower natural frequencies knowledge is a fundamental issue
regarding the tower structural design. This is explained by the fact
that if the excitation frequencies are similar to the natural tower
frequencies the structure could, in extreme cases, be jeopardised by
the resonance or fatigue related phenomena.




The results depicted in Table 2 indicated that the finite element
modelling strategy can somehow affect the nominal values of the
tower natural frequencies for the initial vibration modes. These
results also indicated that the finite element modelling strategy can
significantly affect the values of the tower natural frequencies for
the 50m tower initial vibration modes. The last two towers (70m and
90m) presented small natural frequencies differences for different
modelling strategies. The truss element modelling is associated with
the smallest values, indicating a reduced system stiffness. The
second and third modelling strategies presented no meaningful
differences.

(a) First mode shape, top view

(b) Second mode shape, lateral view
Figure 9. 50m high steel tower layout, mixed beam and truss element
modelling.

It is also interesting to observe in Table 2 that in the mixed third
modelling strategy a slightly lower fundamental frequency occurs
when the 50m tower is considered. This is related to the tower base
horizontal bracing system finite element modelling. This
fundamental frequency is associated with a different vibration mode,
see Fig. 6 (Mixed beam and truss element modelling), than the
modes present in the other modelling strategies.
Figures 6 to 8 depict the first mode shape associated with all
structural models studied in the present paper. All mode shapes,
related to the various models, corresponded except in the first
structural model (50m high tower). In this case there is no
correspondence between the mode shapes extracted by the different
modelling strategies. The third modelling strategy presented a
spurious mode shape associated with the first natural frequency
(Fig. 9). This mode shape describes a torsional mechanism that is
not present if the truss or the beam element models were considered.
If this first mode shape is neglected, the correspondence between the
next two mode shapes associated with the mixed beam and truss
element models can be clearly noticed.
Stability Analysis
Table 3 presents the first three buckling load factor for the
investigated tower structures. The stability analysis considered the
load actions related to perpendicular and diagonal wind load
combinations and the last two already mentioned finite element
modelling strategies (beam elements and mixed beam and truss
elements). As expected the results clearly indicated the significant
influence of the bracing system finite element modelling strategy
over the tower critical loads.
Critical loads evaluated according to second methodology (beam
elements) are substantially higher than the proposed combined
strategy. The lower critical factors are always associated with the
perpendicular wind load case, which can be associated with the
instability failure control. These buckling loads are not associated
with usual design practice and, if adopted, could lead to unsafe
structures.

Beam element modelling

Mixed beam and truss element modelling
Figure 10. 50m high tower first bucking mode, perpendicular wind load
case.

Figures 10 to 12 illustrate the towers first buckling modes
associated with the perpendicular wind load case, for the last two
modelling strategies. It can be noticed that all the instability modes
are associated with local effects, except for the 70m high tower,
when represented by beam elements. In this case the instability
mode is defined by a global structural system behaviour, Fig. 11.


case.
Non-linear Analysis
A guyed tower is generally very sensitive to non-linear effects.
These effects can produce substantial influence over the structural
behaviour indicating that a preliminary investigation should be
made before neglecting them. Because of its low stiffness, the tower
is subjected to large displacements even under service loading
conditions. Other source of non-linearity is the tension-only nature
of the guys. The prestressing level of the guys should be enough to
keep its status as in tension and never allowing a slack
configuration.
To investigate the presence of these two above described non-
linearities, a large displacement analysis was performed considering
the guys as cable (tension-only) elements, as illustrated in Fig. 3, for
the 90m high steel tower structure. The updated Lagrangean
formulation, based on the Newton-Raphson method, was used to
model the geometric non-linearity (ANSYS, 1998).
Three load cases are considered to determine the load level in
which the non-linearities can be clearly observed: Case I - Wind
loads are applied after gravity loads and guys prestressing; Case II -
Wind loads are duplicated and applied after gravity loads and guys
prestressing and Case III - Wind loads are quadruplicated and
applied after gravity loads and guys prestressing.


case.

Figure 13. Tower top displacement versus nominal wind load ratio (Load
condition I).

It is important to notice that gravity loads and the forces due to
guys prestressing are symmetric and do not induce lateral
deflections before the wind loads are introduced into the system.
For the first and second load condition, non-linear effects related
to the guyed steel tower structure, cannot be observed as depicted in
Figs. 13 and 14. Alternatively, when the quadruple of the wind load
were applied to the system the non-linear effects can be clearly
identified, Fig. 15.

condition II).

condition III).
Final Remarks
This paper proposes an alternative structural analysis modelling
strategy, based on qualitative and quantitative comparisons, for
guyed steel towers. The proposed methodology, less conservative
than traditional analysis methods, uses a combined solution of three-
dimensional beam and truss finite element to model the structural
behaviour of 3D tower structures under several loading conditions.
Generally, in all the cases studied, the maximum stress values
for the structural tower modelling based on the three investigated
methodologies were significantly modified. On the other hand, the
lateral displacement values were not significantly changed when the
usual truss model, the beam model or the combined beam and truss
model were considered.
Based on the difficulties found in the analysed guyed steel
towers, present in current engineering design practice, and
corroborated by the nature of the 3D truss finite element, an analysis
only using this element cannot be indicated. This method also
implies in the utilization of a great number of dummy bars to
prevent the occurrence of structural mechanisms. This fact increases
the amount of work to model the structure and generates a potential
error source if the rigidities and/or number of dummy bars were not
properly considered.
Despite the numerous advantages related to the use of beam
finite elements its adoption for modelling the investigated steel
tower should be carefully addressed. The designer should bear in
mind that if rigid connections were used in the design model, higher
buckling load values would be produced, overestimating the actual
values. The effects produced by the adopted modelling strategy
were small when the dynamical behaviour of the systems is
considered. The correspondence between natural frequencies and
mode shapes is dependent of each studied model.
A non-linear analysis was performed and non-linearities were
detected only for extreme load conditions. These results can be used
to validate the initial assumption of the system linear behaviour for
the usual limited load ranges used in design practice.
Finally, based on the obtained results for the investigated tower
geometries, the authors would like to suggest the adoption of the
third mixed strategy in which the bracing systems are modelled by
truss elements.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support for this work
provided by the Faculty of Engineering of the State University of
Rio de Janeiro, FEN/UERJ, Brazil and by the Brazilian Science
Foundations CAPES and CNPq.
References
Albermani, F.G.A., Kitipornchai, S. (2003). Numerical Simulation of
Structural Behaviour of Transmission Tower, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol.
41, N0 2-3, pp 167-177.
Al-Bermani, F.G.A., Kitipornchai, S. (1993). Nonlinear Finite Element
Analysis of Latticed Transmission Towers, Engineering Structures, Vol. 15,
N0 4, pp 259-269.
Albermani, F.G.A., Mahendran, M., Kitipornchai, S. (2004).
Upgrading of Transmission Towers Using a Diaphragm Bracing System,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, N0 6, pp 735-744.
ANSYS (1998). Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 65,
Johnson Road, Houston, PA, 15342-0065, version 5.5, Basic analysis
procedures, Second edition.
Associao Brasileira de Normas Tcnicas, ABNT, NBR 6123 (1988).
Foras Devidas ao Vento em Edificaes.
Blessmann, J. (2001). Acidentes Causados pelos Ventos (Accidents
Caused by Wind Loading), 4th Edition, Editora da Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul, In Portuguese, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Canadian Standards Association - CSA S37-94 (1994). Antennas,
Towers and Antenna-Supporting Structure, Ontario, Canada, 1994.
Carril Jnior, C.F. (2000). Anlise Numrica e Experimental do Efeito
Dinmico do Vento em Torres Metlicas Treliadas para Telecomunicaes,
PhD Thesis, Escola Politcnica da Universidade de So Paulo - USP, In
Portuguese, So Paulo, Brazil.
El-Ghazaly, H.A., Al-Khaiat, H.A. (1995). Analysis and Design of
Guyed Transmission Towers - Case Study in Kuwait, Computers &
Structures, Vol. 55, N0 3, pp 413-431.
Kahla, N, (1994), Dynamic Analysis of Guyed Towers, Eng.
Structures, Vol. 16, pp. 293-301.
Kahla N, (2000), Response of a Guyed Tower to a Guy Rupture Under
no Wind Pressure, Engineering Structures, Vol. 22, pp. 699-706.
Kitipornchai, S., Albermani, F.G.A. (1992). Nonlinear Analysis of
Lattice Structures, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 23, N0 1-
3, pp 209-225.
Madugula, M.K.S., Wahba, Y.M.F., Monforton, G.R. (1998). Dynamic
Response of Guyed Masts, Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, N0 12, pp
1097-1101.
Menin, R.C.G., (2002), Anlise Esttica e Dinmica de Torres
Metlicas Estaiadas, MSc. Dissertation, Publication E.DM-009A/2002,
Depto. de Engenharia Civil e Ambiental, University of Braslia, Brazil (in
portuguese).
Policani, M.N. (2000). Comportamento Estrutural de Torres Metlicas,
MSc Dissertation, Engineering Science Laboratory - UENF, In Portuguese,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Policani, M.N., Silva, J.G.S. da, Estrella Jnior, L.F., Vellasco, P.C.G.
da S., Andrade, S.A.L. de. (2000a). Structural Assessment of Steel
Telecommunication Towers, International Conference on Steel Structures
of the 2000's, pp. 251-256, Istanbul, Turkey.
Rao, N.P., Kalyanaraman, V. (2001). Non-Linear Behaviour of Lattice
Panel of Angle Towers, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 57,
N0 12, pp 1337-1357.
Saxena, R., Popplewell, N., Trainor, P.G.S., Shah, A.H. (1989).
Vibrations of Complex Guyed Towers, 12th Biennial Conference on
Mechanical Vibration and Noise Control, Montreal, Canada.
Silva, J.G.S. da, Vellasco, P.C.G. da S., Andrade, S.A.L. de, Estrella
Jnior, L.F., Policani, M.N. (2000). Comportamento Estrutural de Torres
Metlicas de Telecomunicaes, 21th Iberian Latin American Congress of
Engineering Computational Methods, CILAMCE 2000, pp.1-10, CD ROM,
(In Portuguese), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Silva, J.G.S. da, Vellasco, P.C.G. da S., Andrade, S.A.L. de, Oliveira,
M.I.R. (2002). An Evaluation of Structural Steel Design Systems for
Transmission and Telecommunication Towers, International IASS
Symposium, pp 1-6, Warsaw, Poland.
Silva, J.G.S. da, Vellasco, P.C.G. da S., Andrade, S.A.L. de, Oliveira,
M.I.R. (2005). Structural Assessment of Current Steel Design Models for
Transmission and Telecommunication Towers, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol. 61, N0 8, pp 1108-1134.
Walba, Y, Madugula, M, & Monforton, G, (1996), Free Vibration of
Guyed Antenna Towers, Advances in Steel Structures - Proceedings of
International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures, Hong Kong,
Chan, S. L. and Teng, J. G. edts, ISBN:0080428304, pp. 1095- 1100.
Wahba, Y.M.F., Madugula, M.K.S., Monforton, G. R. (1998).
Evaluation of Non-Linear Analysis of Guyed Antenna Towers, Computers
& Structures, Vol. 68, N0 3, pp 207-212.

Structural Analysis Guyed Steel Telecommunication Towers - A08v29n2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Analysis Guyed Steel Telecommunication Towers - A08v29n2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Analysis of Guyed Steel Telecommunication Towers for ...

You might also like